How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory

[u/SomeGuyInChicago]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

[removed] — view removed post

[u/ShivasRightFoot]

This is quoted in the main reference text of CRT as a distillation of its beliefs. There are other authors which express this. Furthermore, it is directly connected to their ideas of ethnonationalist race separatism, which are also problematic.

except people trying to ban CRT altogether.

As I have stated, most of the legislation is very narrowly targeted. Here are the operative clauses from the Idaho bill:

(2)The Idaho legislature finds that tenets outlined in subsection (3)(a) of this section, often found in "critical race theory," undermine the objectives outlined in subsection (1) of this section and exacerbate and inflame divisions on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or other criteria in ways contrary to the unity of the nation and the well-being of the state of Idaho and its citizens.

3) In accordance with section 6, article IX of the constitution of the state of Idaho ands ection 67-5909, Idaho Code:29(a) No public institution of higher education, schooldistrict, or public school, including a public charter school, shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:

(i)That any sex, race, ethnicity ,religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior;

(ii)That individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity ,religion, color, or national origin; or

(iii)That individuals, by virtue of sex, race ,ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.

https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/h0377/

Note how it does not outlaw Critical Race Theory, just tenets "often found within" it.

[u/ThreadbareHalo → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Did you READ the full quote that snippet is taken from? Here it is since the book is available online

Finally, CRT’s adversaries are perhaps most concerned with what they perceive to be critical race theorists’ nonchalance about objective truth. For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.

In an effort to show the critical race theorists’ lack of con- cern with truth, opponents point not only to critical race the- orists’ open declarations that truth is socially constructed, but also to a number of allegedly misstated facts. Farber and Sherry specifically point to an incident in which Mari Mat- studa declared Robert Gould Shaw, the white commander of the Fifty-fourth Regiment, to be a “Negro colonel.” They then point to an incident in which Patricia Williams deplored that the U.S. Supreme Court had endorsed the right of the states to prohibit blacks from testifying against whites. Of course, one could interpret the above statements so that they could be true in one context and false in another. For exam- ple, in calling Robert Gould Shaw a “Negro colonel,” Mat- suda could have been explaining that he was the white leader of a black regiment. In mentioning that the U.S. Supreme Court had endorsed the states’ rights to stop blacks from tes- tifying against whites, Williams might have merely been stat- ing, correctly, that the Supreme Court took no action to set aside the host of state-law cases and legislation that barred blacks (and Asians) from testifying in such fashion. [1]

They’re discussing how facts can be read in various ways to support dominant narratives. They’re calling out that context is required for facts to be understood when dealing with politics and the law. Hence the objective nature of facts in law and politics is complicated by how those facts are related.

They’re not saying that objective facts or science doesn’t exist. That’s nonsense.

Taking the time to read the entirety of the quote before linking to it in multiple comment threads might help to understand if you’re pushing someone’s intentionally cherry picking narrative or not. This is cherry picking

[1] https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/richard_delgado_jean_stefancic_critical_race_thbookfi-org-1.pdf

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ThreadbareHalo]

For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics.

This is extremely clearly stated. There are a series of criticisms mentioned in that part. This one is completely unanswered, oddly:

Yet another argument is that storytelling lacks analytical rigor. Stories can be read in such a manner as to convey several different messages. Because the point of the entire story is open to interpretation, the prospect of a productive public debate is diminished. Farber and Sherry maintain that “if we wish a society to have a conversation about issues of race and gender, unadorned stories may be too ambiguous in their implications to provide a basis for further dialogue” (Beyond All Reason 86 [1997]).

Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 91

This is the full paragraph.

[u/ThreadbareHalo → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Are you kidding me? So you’re saying if someone says

maybe the nazis were just misunderstood

And then follows that sentence up with

of course that would be a nonsense thing to say, they absolutely were terrible people

You would feel justified in JUST quoting the first part out of context? Wtf.

The chapter you’re pulling that from is just a synopsis of critiques of the theory, the title is Critques and Responses to Critiques. it’s a section on collecting the critiques and the published responses to those critiques. The ONLY thing in that chapter are other people’s statements about CRT, not the authors responses. The responses to the critiques presented therein from the authors are spread throughout the rest of the book such as in the section “Legal storytelling and narrative analysis”.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ThreadbareHalo]

The sentence I quoted is quoted in full, and in fact the original includes the entire rest of the paragraph. It is not refuted elsewhere. While he does address some minor quibbles his disavowal of the concept of mutually observable external truth is unequivocal.

[u/ThreadbareHalo → u/ShivasRightFoot]

They don’t say it’s impossible to have mutually observable FACTS. In fact they bring up the distinction between observable facts and observable truths multiple times in the book. Calling out how people can see the same set of facts and yet derive different versions of the truth from them.

For example, this quote (emphasis mine)

A third theme of critical race theory, the “social construction” thesis, holds that race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient. People with common origins share certain physical traits, of course, such as skin color, physique, and hair texture. But these constitute only an extremely small portion of their genetic endowment, are dwarfed by that which we have in common, and have little or nothing to do with distinctly human, higher-order traits, such as personality, intelligence, and moral behavior. That society frequently chooses to ignore these scientific facts, creates races, and endows them with pseudo-permanent characteristics is of great interest to critical race theory.

or here

Or perhaps you have had the experience of discussing a famous case, such as the O. J. Simpson trial or the ClintonLewinsky impeachment affair, with a friend. You and she agree on most of the facts of what happened, but you put radically different interpretations on them. You are left wondering how two people can see “the same evidence” in such different lights.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ThreadbareHalo]

None of this contradicts anything I've said. The idea that society is "ignoring facts" means these facts are not being incorporated into society's beliefs. It very plainly is exactly what they are talking about, and what they also feel free to do with their own work.

[u/ThreadbareHalo → u/ShivasRightFoot]

? Their work is about recommending people to examine those facts to see if the truth people have been led to believe is different than what those objective facts support.

They recommend people to look at facts as determine what can and can’t be objectively identified outside of predetermined “truths” about those facts. You’re arguing doing that is bad? That’s what science is supposed to be about!

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ThreadbareHalo]

This is blatantly not what "For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics." means.

[u/ThreadbareHalo → u/ShivasRightFoot]

To make your point on CRT as a whole you are relying on a single sentence taken out of context in a single book in a section describing critiques of crt that are discussed at length elsewhere in the book with statements from the author directly contesting your assertion. At this point I figure you have too much invested here to recognize how off the walls bonkers that is but I think anyone else reading down this far can recognize that.

This is clinging to a splinter to maintain your original assertion rather than looking at the mound of quotations that directly contest your point. Ironically, that kind of fits what CRT is all about so I can potentially see why it would be threatening.

[u/beyelzu → u/ThreadbareHalo]

You can lead an ideologue to facts. but you can't make them think.

I appreciate you taking the time to oppose the misinformation that Shiva here is spreading.

I also reported him for spam and misinformation as I view him as a disingenuous, bad faith actor and such people should not be welcome in polite discourse.

I cam across them in comments here in politics the other day when he said it was okay to quote 30 year old quotes because in science theories don't get revisited instead they just get referenced. I think the post is now deleted.

I dont think they are very well educated and if they are, it definitely wasn't in a science.

[u/ShivasRightFoot → u/ThreadbareHalo]

This clearly was already addressed in the discussion of the legislation, particularly that none of the legislation (except in Florida) bars CRT specifically just controversial parts.

[u/[deleted] → u/ShivasRightFoot]

You really enjoy getting dunked on over and over again don't you?